ideas to impact.
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES
TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO
CLIMATE CHANGE?
Mipsie Marshall
Lars Otto Naess
Institute of Development Studies
MAY 2015
AN ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES,
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONDITIONS
IN A DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
This document is part of a suite of four papers (a guide and three thematic papers) that
capture the learning from the first year of the Ideas to Impact programme. More specifically:
Innovation prizes:
a guide for use in a
developing country
context identifies
the stages required
to define whether an
innovation prize is a
suitable instrument to
help address a given
development problem;
Can innovation prizes
help address water and
sanitation challenges?
Introduces the concept
of innovation prizes and
presents a number of
areas where they may
have application;
SEE OUR
GUIDE
Addressing problems
in energy access
through the use of
Innovation prizes
shows how the guide
was applied in a specific
context and sets out
the challenges faced in
using innovation prizes
to support improved
energy access; and
SEE OUR
WASH
REPORT
SEE OUR
ENERGY ACCESS
REPORT
Where text in this paper makes reference to one of the other papers in this
suite, the relevant text will be highlighted and the icon representing the crossreferenced paper will appear in the margin.
At the time of publishing, Ideas to Impact is undertaking the detailed design
of five diverse innovation prizes. The team expects to document further
findings from this process through follow-up publications that will:
●● Extend the Guide to include detailed design;
●● Share further learning from experiences across the three themes (thematic
papers currently go only as far as Stage 2 of the Guide in their analysis); and
●● Provide guidance on how to establish monitoring and evaluation
frameworks for innovation prizes.
Visit the Ideas to Impact website www.ideastoimpact.net and sign
up to the newsletter to receive updates.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was jointly written by Mipsie Marshall and Lars Otto Naess,
Institute of Development Studies. The authors would like to thank Tom
Tanner (Overseas Development Institute) and Michael Loevinsohn (Institute
for Development Studies) for useful peer review comments on an earlier
draft, and Bryony Everett and the Ideas to Impact team for support and
comments through the writing process. Any remaining errors or omissions
are the responsibility of the authors.
Design: www.stevendickie.com/design
A role for innovation
prizes to support
adaptation to climate
change? An analysis
of challenges,
opportunities and
conditions takes a
theoretical approach
to understanding the
effects innovation prizes
might have in the climate
change adaptation field.
SEE OUR
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION REPORT
CONTENTS
Executive summary
2
1INTRODUCTION
4
2 INNOVATION PRIZES AND ADAPTATION: BACKGROUND AND GUIDE
6
2.1 Innovation prizes: origin, characteristics and recent trends
7
2.2 Innovation prizes to support adaptation to climate change
8
2.3 Analytical framework
10
3 APPLYING THE GUIDE: ANALYSIS OF INNOVATION PRIZES AND ADAPTATION
12
3.1 Prizes giving opportunities for the poorest and most vulnerable?
13
3.2 Successful adaptation and adaptation prize narratives
15
3.3 Adaptation prize experiences – opening up or closing down?
16
3.4 How are adaptation prizes measuring success?
19
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
20
4.1 A role for innovation prizes to support adaptation?
Key potential opportunities
21
4.2 Key challenges and principles for research and application
22
References
24
Annex A: Innovation prizes and adaptation: synthesis of the analysis
25
Annex B: Prize option 1 - Climate information for adaptation
27
Annex C: Prize option 2 – Adaptation at scale
28
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim of this paper is to examine the role of innovation
prizes in supporting adaptation to climate change in
the context of development, in view of two parallel
trends: First, a growing interest in applying innovation
prizes to international development, and second, the
increasing focus on ensuring that adaptation funding and
implementation are achieving the goals of supporting
the poorest and most vulnerable groups. We analyse
innovation prizes – their origin, recent trends, and
adaptation experiences–against a pathways approach as
well as characteristics of successful adaptation, in order to
examine whether and under what conditions innovation
prizes can play a positive role in supporting adaptation.
The study finds that while there is significant overlap in
goals and mechanisms between innovation prizes and
adaptation, key challenges remain in reconciling tensions
that could exclude vulnerable or marginal groups from
competing for, or benefiting from, innovation prizes.
The paper proposes a set of actions to explore the
possibilities of overcoming the challenges, which will be
tested through two innovation prizes for improving the
usability of climate information (Kenya) and scaling up
innovation capabilities (Nepal).
2
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
3
1
INTRODUCTION
4
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
Prizes and awards have become increasingly popular over
recent years, expanding into new areas and new types of prizes.
There may be several reasons for this increased interest, such as
a growing focus on private-sector engagement and corporate
social responsibility (CSR), and an increasing prominence of
payment by results (PbR)-related concepts among many donor
agencies and other funding organisations.
One of these ‘new’ areas is adaptation to climate
change, where prizes to date have supported
community based adaptation, new technologies for
adaptation, and new solutions to promote resilience.
This application of prizes coincides with a growing
focus on, on the one hand, understanding how
funding for adaptation, which is expected to grow
significantly over coming years, can better target for
the poorest and most vulnerable groups, and on the
other, an increased effort to involve the private sector
in adaptation (Pauw, 2014), which has so far played
a relatively minor role in adaptation as compared to
mitigation and low carbon development.
The aim of this paper is to examine the
feasibility – challenges, opportunities
and ways forward – of innovation
prizes to support adaptation in a
development context. The paper is
part of the DFID-funded programme
Ideas to Impact (2014–2019), which
will design and implement prizes in
three areas: energy access, safe water,
and adaptation to climate change.
On adaptation, the programme is
focussing on two prize options: the
first on demand-driven models for
the use of climate information, with
a particular focus on Kenya, and
second, a prize to incentivise bringing
adaptation solutions to scale through
supporting innovation capabilities,
focussed on Nepal. These areas were
selected through expert consultation
during April–June 2014, as comprising
two of the key adaptation challenges
which are at the same time, potentially
suitable for a prize competition. For
further detail on these two areas, see
Annexes B and C, respectively. The
paper is part of the initial research to
analyse the scope of prizes to support
adaptation, and key areas to test during
implementation. The paper is based on
a review of published and unpublished
(‘grey’) literature and interviews and
consultations with about 100 global and
in-country adaptation experts, policy
makers, funders and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) between April
2014 and March 2015.
ENERGY ACCESS
Section 1
For more on the recent
use of innovation prizes.
To date, most prizes that have been applied to
adaptation are recognition prizes, i.e. prizes that
rewards past achievement. By contrast, we here focus
on innovation prizes, which set out to incentivise new
action. The rationale for applying innovation prizes
to adaptation includes that they may be able to help
unblock challenges in ways that grants cannot do
through reaching out to new groups, encouraging
partnerships, and avoiding the risk associated with
grant schemes of picking winners in advance. For the
most part, innovation prizes are seen as a potential
mechanism to complement grant-based funding, but
are also considered as a potential replacement in
areas where traditional types of funding are failing to
solve long standing problems.
The paper is structured as follows. We
start by reviewing innovation prizes’
expanding focus, and examples of
the application to adaptation, with
the arguments and concerns raised
(section 2.1 and 2.2). We then (section
2.3) develop the analytical framework,
centred on two components: first,
characteristics for successful adaptation
outcomes, and second, theories of
how the outcomes for the poorest
and most vulnerable groups are
mediated through complex interactions
between actors, the narratives or
discourses they are supporting, and
their agency in bringing their views to
bear on activities. Section 3 applies
this analytical framework to innovation
prizes to support adaptation. We find
the key challenges to be (1) that the
approach to participation in innovation
prize processes tends to be limited, and
in some cases contradictory to the goals
they set out to achieve; (2) that the way
prizes are run typically are about closing
down rather than opening up spaces
for participation; (3) that an intrinsic
part of innovation prizes is to ‘identify
excellence’ to choose a winner, which
is a process that may narrowly define
the terms of ‘successful adaptation’,
and (4) that prizes to facilitate processes
of wider participation would arguably
make prizes more costly and timeconsuming, and so potentially less
attractive to funders.
WASH
Section 1.1
Discusses
other potential
advantages.
In section 4, we reflect on the
challenges and possible options to
overcome them. It is clear that they
represent real and important concerns,
that if not addressed could render
prizes more likely to reinforce drivers
of vulnerability than help reduce
them. However, we propose that the
challenges are not insurmountable,
and that they may be overcome
through a process of careful design,
monitoring and adjustment. The final
section suggests a set of actions, to
be tested out in the two prize areas in
Kenya and Nepal.
5
2
INNOVATION
PRIZES AND
ADAPTATION:
BACKGROUND
AND ANALYTICAL
FRAMEWORK
6
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
2.1 INNOVATION PRIZES: ORIGIN, CHARACTERISTICS AND
RECENT TRENDS
The use of prizes as a mechanism to drive technological innovation and social change has taken
off over the past few decades, both in terms of the number of prizes, and the value of prizes
being awarded. McKinsey and Company (2009) report a 15-fold increase in the value of prizes
above USD 100,000 since 1974. The way that prizes are being applied is also changing. Prior
to the early 1990s nearly all prizes were awarded to recognise past achievements. Since then,
however, the focus has shifted and the majority of prizes are now designed to induce future
action and change. In more recent times, the distinction between recognition and inducement
prizes has become increasingly blurred, with prizes taking on new shape depending on the
specific needs of different situations (Deliotte, 2014). McKinsey and Company (2009) and
Everett et al. (2011) define a number of indicative prize types, shown in Table 1, which reflect
the different narratives around what prizes set out to do (their purpose), and how they set out to
achieve this (their change levers).
Underlying all of these prize types is the imperative to discover and support new ways of
approaching a framed problem, and to promote particular agendas and narratives in relation
to a problem or prize area. Depending on their design and motivation, some prizes might
have a stronger focus on discovering novel ideas and solutions, and may be more open
to ‘surprises’, whereas others may have a more narrowly defined idea of the kinds of activity
or solution that should be awarded, with perhaps a more specific agenda-setting goal. In
either case, the idea is that they create a space in which complementary and contesting
knowledge bases come together to assert, or reach agreement on, what development
should look like. They seek to support these development narratives by focussing attention
on a particular issue, identifying excellence, inspiring others, influencing public perception
and decision makers, providing financial rewards and mobilising further capital, building
capacity of solvers, strengthening networks, and stimulating markets (Everett et al., 2011;
McKinsey and Company, 2009). As such they form a highly visible space and method for
innovation appraisal and decision making, i.e. they represent one of the many complex and
political ways in which judgements and ideas evolve into development pathways (Leach et
al., 2010; Stirling, 2008).
Arguably, a key driving force behind
the growth in prizes is the arrival of
new forms of transnational corporate
wealth, largely generated during the
high-tech boom of the 1990s. These
corporations are increasingly using
prizes to channel funds towards
social projects (McKinsey and
Company, 2009) as part of their CSR
commitments, which are being fuelled
simultaneously by the opening up of
new private sector opportunities in
traditionally public sector spaces of
social welfare provision (Sadler and
Lloyd, 2009), and by a growing trend
towards CSR as a way of generating
good PR and supporting social
processes that are ultimately good for
business (Levick, 2012).
Although the majority of recent funding
for prizes has come from large financial
foundations and private sector actors –
74% since 2000, according to McKinsey
and Company (2009) – governments are
increasingly turning to prizes as a way to
support innovation alongside traditional
support for patents, grants, and
competitively bid contracts (ibid.). This
move reflects the broader shift towards
PbR within public spending, and some
arguments in its favour mirror those for
results based finance in general, namely
increased efficiency and reduced risk for
the donor. In addition however, prizes
are specifically credited as enabling
engagement with a wide range of
potential problem solvers, focussing
them around an important goal without
specifying the best approach, and
showcasing multiple ways to resolve the
problem (Everett et al., 2011).
WASH
Section 4.1
For more on
unexpected solutions.
In addition to the trends in private
sector financing, PbR and shifting
risk away from donors and towards
recipients, the growth in use of
prizes is emerging from a number of
other powerful narratives including
that: technology innovation will
solve social problems and stimulate
economic growth; competition
encourages innovation; innovation
processes are more effective if they
include diverse framings and ideas;
and that the media is important in
changing consumer behaviour and
building support for innovations
(McKinsey and Company, 2009).
7
TABLE 1: TYPES OF PRIZES AND THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY INTEND TO SUPPORT INNOVATION
GUIDE
Stage 2
Source: McKinsey and Company (2009); Everett et al. (2011)
Prize type
Purpose
Potential change levers
Exemplar
Recognition prize to focus attention on, set
standards in, and/or influence perception of a
particular field or issue
Identify excellence
Exposition /
Innovation Awards
Recognise best practices, ideas, or
opportunities, and provide support for growth/
development
Media attention
Celebrate and strengthen a particular
community
Identify ‘excellence’
Network
For more on
different prize types.
Influence perception
Identify ‘excellence’
Mobilise capital
Strengthening community
Mobilising capital
Participation (Social
prize)
Educate and/or change behaviour of participants
through the prize process
Strengthening community
Community Action
(Social prize)
Stimulate community action
Generating innovative ideas
Enhance transfer of existing technology,
behaviours or processes into the mainstream
Enhance transfer of existing technology,
behaviours or processes into the mainstream
Educating/improving skills
Mobilise capital and effort towards community issues
Strengthening community
(Works best in conjunction with other initiatives)
Market Stimulation
Emulate market incentives, driving costs down
through competition and exposing latent
demand
Identifying excellence
Mobilising talent, capital
Focussing a community
Influencing perception
Point Solution /
Open Innovation
Solve a challenging, well-defined problem
requiring innovation
Focussing a community
Mobilising talent
2.2 INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
The number of prizes focussing on climate change and
the environment has increased considerably over the past
10-15 years. A McKinsey and Company (2009) survey of 219
prizes with prize purses of over USD 100,000, found that
those focussing on climate change and the environment
increased from 6 in 1997, to 77 in 2007. However, the
overwhelming majority of these prizes have been on
climate mitigation, to support development of low carbon
technologies, innovative carbon emission reduction
strategies, and encourage behavioural change. Experience
in using prizes to support climate adaptation remains
limited, however, interest in adaptation prizes is growing
among both government and private sector investors.
8
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
A selection of prizes focussed on adaptation is shown
in Table 2. They range from recognition focussed
‘exemplar’ prizes, such as the UNFCCC Momentum for
Change: Lighthouse Activities prize, AfriCAN Climate,
and the upcoming 2015 ASAP Prize for Progress in
Adapting to Climate Change, which seek to highlight
and encourage adaptation by awarding honours to
individuals, communities, businesses, and governmental
and non-governmental organisations, for best practice or
recognisable adaptation achievements; through to more
complex prizes that combine elements of prize types, such
as Ashoka Changemakers and the Equator Prize.
This increased interest follows the general trend of prizes, in that funders are looking
to reduce their risks and make funding more efficient, while drawing in new actors and
demonstrating good practice. Given the dominance of private finance within prizes,
and the tendency for many innovation prizes to focus on identifying and supporting
market-based innovations, the relatively low number of adaptation prizes maybe
attributed, at least in part, to the difficulties that climate adaptation efforts have faced
in attracting private sector investment in general. The Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund
for example, has highlighted challenges over the difficulties of engaging the private
sector on adaptation through the REACT Window.1 The challenge of stimulating private
sector interest in adaptation is also a motivation for the development of prizes, such
as with the Ideas to Impact programme, as prizes are seen as a useful way to engage
private sector actors.
TABLE 2: EXAMPLES OF INNOVATION PRIZES FOR ADAPTATION
1.
Prize name
Prize type
Prize Goal(s)
Award
Equator Prize
Innovation Award/
community action
Recognise and advance local sustainable development
solutions for people, nature and resilient communities
USD 5,000 x25 and
‘several’ USD 20,000
Ashoka Changemakers
Network / point
solution
Build networks, using a web-based platform to
connect foundations and corporations with social
innovators through challenges
USD 5,000 to millions
The ND-GAIN Corporate Adaptation
Prize
Exemplar
Recognise corporate achievement in reducing climate
vulnerability of those in highly vulnerable countries
Honour
NCCARF Climate Adaptation
Champions
Exemplar
Recognise achievement of Australian businesses,
government departments, and individuals in
supporting adaptation
Honour
Climate-KIC Climate Adaptation
Business Challenge 2013
Innovation Award
Explore new business ideas and support promising
ventures in climate adaptation
Financial 15,000 EUR
and 25,000 EUR
Solutions Search, Adapting to a
Changing Environment
Innovation Award
Recognise and support successful community-driven
adaptation
Financial USD 5,000 x2
and USD 20,000 x2
2015 ASAP Prize for Progress in
Adapting to Climate Change
Exemplar
Improve professional practice in adapting to climate
change by highlighting the adaptation practices of
leading U.S. communities and organisations
Honour
AfriCAN Climate
Exemplar
Recognises excellence among practitioners and
researchers working on climate change in Africa. Part
of information dissemination and AfriCAN promotion
activities
Honour
UNFCCC Momentum for Change:
Lighthouse Activities
Exemplar
High profile recognition prize, highlighting climate
change actions to “strengthen motivation, spur
innovation and catalyse further change towards a lowemission, high-resilient future”
Honour
Rockefeller Foundation Global
Resilience partnership
Point solution
Design challenge that brings together cross-sectoral
teams to research and develop large-scale, ‘locallydriven’ resilience solutions
Financial
AECF staff, Nairobi, May 20141.
9
2.3 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
This section will explore the arguments for innovation prizes and adaptation, laying out
the analytical framework for the sections to follow. The framework is built around two key
components of theories of adaptation. The first is that adaptation outcomes are mediated
by actors, narratives and agency. This component is important in order to understand
whether and how innovation prizes can help unblock or overcome challenges of benefiting
the poorest and most marginalised groups of people. The second component concerns
characteristics of successful adaptation. This is important as it relates to the match between
what prizes are aiming to achieve and desirable adaptation outcomes.
Adaptation is defined as “adjustment in natural or human
systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits
beneficial opportunities” (Adger et al., 2007: 720). It
is most commonly thought of as a process involving
reduction in vulnerability to climate shocks and stressors,
but can also be seen as an outcome of ‘being adapted’.
Adaptation thus involves a range of activities and
processes, from making development processes robust
and flexible in the face of climate change, to targeted
interventions to confront particular climate projections.
Adaptation will require a combination of improvements
in existing processes, introduction of new technologies
and practices, as well as deeper, transformative change
in policies, institutions, social relations, and behaviours.
Adaptation will occur through a mix of planned and socalled autonomous2 change, ‘top-down’ implementation
as well as bottom-up responses, and anticipatory as well
as reactive responses.
Within traditional approaches to
appraisal there is a strong tendency
for greatest support and resources to
be rallied around the narratives that
resonate with the interests of those
with social, political and economic
power. Thus development pathways
are likely to form in ways that reinforce
existing power relations, closing down
around the needs of the powerful and
excluding marginal perspectives (Leach
et al., 2010). This process of ‘closing
down’ happens as particular types of
knowledge, perspectives, options,
and possibilities are prioritised over
others. The most obvious example
here is when governments set
adaptation priority areas in national
climate change strategies. But such
2.
10
Political economy analysis of adaptation shows how it
cannot be assumed that the poorest and most vulnerable
will benefit from adaptation interventions, and there is
an increasing recognition of the need to understand the
politics of adaptation and which policy levers or ‘spaces’
can be used to support adaptation goals (Newell et al.
2014, Quan et al. 2014, Tanner et al. 2014, Eakin et al.
2015). For this paper, we draw on insights from research
on complex social and environmental problems, focussing
on two elements. First, analysing the key narratives, actors
supporting them, the political issues involved, which actors,
types of knowledge, perspectives, options, and possibilities
are included and excluded in debates and decision making,
and what implications this has for the direction of adaptation
pathways. The purpose here will be to understand whether
and how innovation prizes are centred on particular types
of narratives and actors, and whether alternative narratives
(and their associated actors) are excluded or included. The
second part consists of understanding so-called ‘policy
spaces’, areas where it is possible to expand debates,
bringing evidence to bear on policy and action that would
otherwise not be heard. This component is important to
understand, following from the above, which possibilities
that exist for overcoming the challenges that are identified.
processes can also be less visible by
the normative values, assumptions and
power relations that shape appraisal
and decision-making structures, for
example in the way that appraisal
processes tend to define adaptation
problems in terms of risk calculation,
rendering invisible the diverse forms of
knowledge, perspectives, and potential
routes of action, that characterise
complex issues (ibid.). Adaptation
is a complex problem, in which the
perspectives of marginalised groups
and inclusion of local knowledge is
vital. Thus a better understanding
of the different narratives, the actors
behind them, and their power relations,
can help understand how to better
target adaptation funding.
Meaning taking place without external support.
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
Table 3 outlines some generic
characteristics of successful
adaptation. Adaptation activities
are first and foremost characterised
by what factors are considered
in planning, particularly for the
poorest and most vulnerable, how
development pathways are designed
to be robust and flexible, adjusted to
take into account the range of possible
climate scenarios, and, crucially, how it
considers options for transformational
change in cases where gradual,
incremental change is not sufficient.
TABLE 3: SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION
Sources: Based on Badahur et al (2010); Brookes et al. (2011); Eriksen et al. (2011); Tanner and Horn-Pathanothai (2014)
Characteristic
Description
Effective
• Achieves stated adaptation objectives of adjusting to current or projected climate shocks and stressors
Recognises complex contexts
• Considers the intersecting social relations and environmental conditions that lead to climate vulnerability
and recognises other drivers of change, as well as the potential effects of feedbacks between local and
global economic, political and social processes
• Allows for, or supports, multiple adaptation solutions that meet the diverse needs of vulnerable people
in complex contexts
Robust and flexible
• Strengthens the ability of systems to maintain or recover function under short term climate shocks and
long term climate stresses, and is able to respond to a wide range of future climate conditions
• Able to change and adjust in order to adapt to different contexts, and future system changes. Leads to an
increased range of options and avoids ‘locking-in’ to particular technologies or development pathways
Equitable and legitimate
• Ensures equitable distribution of benefits and proactively targeting marginalised social groups
Potentially transformative
• Recognises incompatibilities between business-as-usual development and vulnerability reduction or
resilience building, and works towards transforming development trajectories
Low or no-regrets, cost efficient
• Provides benefits irrespective of climate change and provides solutions that are accessible and effective for
those with least or limited access to resources
• Accepted among those affected; values and incorporates the local knowledge and narratives of those affected
• Cost efficient compared to other options, both in terms of monetary input and unpaid work effort
11
3
APPLYING THE
FRAMEWORK:
ANALYSIS OF
INNOVATION
PRIZES AND
ADAPTATION
12
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
This section will discuss innovation prizes in view of the framework discussed above.
Bearing in mind what we know about the characteristics of successful adaptation
and the shortfalls of existing adaptation funding, especially in addressing the
diverse adaptation needs of the poorest and most vulnerable3, we discuss here what
role innovation prizes could play in filling the gaps, and what a prize would need to
consider if it were to support adaptation.
3.1 PRIZES GIVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
POOREST AND MOST VULNERABLE?
If prizes are to support adaptation for the poorest and most vulnerable, they need to provide
a space for the perspectives of marginalised groups to shape the kinds of solutions that
are supported. In order to begin addressing the ways in which appraisal processes close
down around the priorities of powerful interests, we suggest that prizes should focus on
three processes (as proposed by Leach et al., 2010):
ENERGY ACCESS
Section 4.6
For more on
grassroots innovation.
1. Broadening out the inputs to the prize process – making it inclusive of diverse
perspectives, methods, possibilities, options and conditions
2. Opening up the outputs from the prize process – recognising diverse options and
acknowledging distributional and sustainability implications of the adaptation pathways
that will result.
3. Addressing unequal power relations; for example, highlighting the needs of the very
poorest social groups, so that it does not inadvertently or deliberately prioritise pathways
favoured by a particular group.
The ways in which a prize engages
with these processes and facilitates
the dialogue over what adaptation
should look like, and which options
should receive support – which actors
it brings to the table, what conditions,
possibilities and perspectives it
considers, and the support or power
it lends to the different narratives that
are presented – will have important
implications for the distribution
of benefits from prize outcomes.
This echoes feedback from our key
informants, which suggested that
special care and a ’positive bias’
would need to be applied to prize
design and implementation in order
for prizes to reach and benefit
the poorest and most vulnerable
communities.
GUIDE
Stage 2
For more on
including stakeholders.
Reflexivity is crucial if prizes are to
open up support for marginalised
actors. Throughout prize design and
implementation, choices over the
kinds of problems tackled and the
solutions that arise will be based on
incomplete knowledge (Leach et al,
2010). This is especially the case with
climate adaptation. Climate change is,
by its complex nature, characterised
by various levels of uncertainty over
projected biophysical impacts, with
the social impacts of any one climate
hazard potentially experienced and
interpreted in a myriad of different
ways by different actors and at different
times. Many informants highlighted the
challenge involved with identifying new
solutions, such as models for increased
uptake of climate information, that
would be generic enough to have
relevance to a sufficiently large
population to be viable, while at the
same time being specific enough to be
of relevance to people’s livelihoods.
Anticipating who is most vulnerable to
climate change, and what leads to their
vulnerability is rarely straightforward.
For example, whereas one study on
vulnerability to water stress within
certain communities in China found
socio-economic factors to be the
most important driver of vulnerability
(Liu et al., 2008), a similar study in the
Philippines showed that geographical
location in relation to markets
and irrigation facilities was a more
important determinant of farmers
ability to adapt (Acosta-Michlik and
Espaldon, 2008). Unexpected and
unintended outcomes are unavoidable,
but must be responded to in order to
build resilience. From this, adaptation
prizes must be able to incorporate
iterative learning, attempt to be open
to a wide range of sources and types
of knowledge, and question claims
of objectivity or certainty as they may
exclude other ways of viewing the
world. Key informants highlighted
the range of skills, technologies and
capacities that existed at the local level,
but the difficulty in attracting funding
to support scaling up of activities.
GUIDE
Stage 3
3.
The term ‘poor and vulnerable’ reflects the “very poor” and “poor” segments of Ideas to Impacts Programme focus on low income households.
[Very poor, below $1.25 purchasing power parity per person per day; poor $1.25 - $2.5 Purchasing power parity per person per day]
For more on the
benefits of a diverse
range of solvers.
13
Goldfrank (2006) highlights transparency as key to opening up decision-making processes,
so as to consider complexity and ambiguity; making all relevant information accessible
(including information about the funding context), and the rules, criteria or methods used for
making decisions, so that it can be opened up to participatory debate and deliberation.
If we start at the beginning of the prize process,
with the framing of the problem, prizes will be
subject to pressures that may cause them to close
down around particular interests and world views.
Sponsors will have priorities and ideas about what
problems need solving (McKinsey and Company,
2009), but these priorities may not align with actual
adaptation needs. Despite increased focus on
mapping adaptation needs at sub-national and
local scales, important gaps exist between bottomup perspectives and the dominant, global and
national level assessments based on downscaling
global climate models and setting national level
adaptation priorities. If problem definition happens
from the top-down, then the outputs of the prize
will already be largely constrained to those that fit
with those adaptation and development narratives
supported by powerful interests. This is a particular
problem in situations where successful adaptation
requires transformative innovations, or processes
of empowerment, which clash with interests of
incumbent elites, in particular, prize sponsors.
Engaging with processes of broadening out and
opening up, therefore means beginning with
bottom-up, participatory processes of problem
framing. A lot of work on community based
adaptation has been carried out in developing
countries over recent years, documenting the
wealth of local knowledge and perspectives on
vulnerability and adaptation, but this body of
work has so far had limited impact on national
level policies and strategies, which remains to a
large extent driven by formal scientific knowledge.
Some informants highlighted that a possible
positive effect of a prize could be to bring local
‘best practices’ to the attention of a wider
audience, thus influencing policy processes from
the bottom up.4
GUIDE
Stage 2
For more on changing
the policy environment.
More than giving stakeholders influence over the type of problems that are solved, it also means asking why the prize is
being run, making visible the powerful and the marginal narratives shaping the framing of the problem, the dissenting
opinions among stakeholders, and opening up these elements of problem framing to transparent deliberation. Further,
questions need to be asked about whom the stakeholders are that influence prize framing, and how their perspectives are
weighted in the decision, i.e. how much power do they have? ‘Experts’ for example will no doubt have a role to play in this
process, but their input should be taken in a wider context that gives symmetrical weighting to different kinds of knowledge
(Leach et al., 2010) including the world views of climate vulnerable and marginalised groups.
Opening up the prize outputs will require more than awarding multiple winners. A diversity of perspectives should be
reflected within the adaptation options supported. The prize processes, and the decision-making methods and tools used
within the prize will shape the outputs through the ways in which they consider different contexts and kinds of knowledge,
the perspectives they solicit and support, and the options they permit. Thus, multiple winners may reflect a very narrow
range of options if, for example, the process of choosing those winners gives greater weight to particular narratives, is
based on criteria that attempt to reduce the complexity of adaptation, leaves no space for options that challenge dominant
development pathways, or if it exerts structural pressures that reinforce power relations and thus exclude certain actors.
Careful and reflexive design of prize processes is needed,
to make them as inclusive as possible. Within this, specific
targeting of marginalised groups and consideration of power
relations are key. How, for example, is gender taken into
consideration within judging, and prize design? Are women
and men’s voices being given equal weight in deciding
what solutions are awarded? Do existing gender norms
and divisions of labour constrain the ability of women to
participate in the prize competition? Different tools and
methods will also close down around particular ways of
seeing the world. Cost-benefit analyses for example, can be
seen to close down as they ignore or obfuscate particular
dimensions of cost and benefit; In particular as they draw
greater attention to easily quantifiable financial gains and
losses, and down play factors with greater ambiguity such
as complex social and economic issues, and environmental
impacts (Leach et al., 2010).
4.
14
Senior policymaker, Nepal, March 2015
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
As with problem framing, a participatory deliberative
approach to making final investment decisions would
enable discussion over the ambiguity inherent adaptation
challenges. Again, this means more than putting it to a
public vote. It should seek to understand who is likely to
benefit from the supported options, and how. Questions
such as how cost efficient an option is can be explored in
ways that go beyond narrow definitions of cost-benefit,
to include diverse and unquantifiable perspectives on
social and environmental impacts. Understanding the ways
that supported options are shaping and evolving into
development pathways takes time, however. Long term
monitoring is therefore essential, for example through
feeding back learning into reflexive discussion about how
the prize is run in future and what adaptation problems and
options receive support.
3.2 SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION AND ADAPTATION PRIZE
NARRATIVES
Without processes of reflexivity, prizes may, due to exclusion of marginalised framings within the narratives
that shape prize design and operation, act to further close down around dominant development pathways.
As noted above, the increasing use of prizes reflects a shift in the way that funding is being disbursed
more generally, from traditional grant-based financing, towards PbR. This requires programme and project
implementers to have delivered independently verifiable results before they are paid for the work they have
done. The move towards PbR and prizes can be seen as part of a continuing trend towards neoliberal models
of governance and finance, in which public spending is reduced in favour of private sector investment. This
makes prizes potentially appealing to donors on the basis that they can be certain of impact before they
make an investment, and potentially leverage much greater private sector investment around a problem
through prize participants, than the prize purse itself. It is also claimed that prizes are particularly attractive to
private-sector investors, who are thought to seek measurable and tangible results (McKinsey and Company,
2009). An argument for cost efficiency in adaptation could therefore make prizes and PbR seem like a logical
way of distributing limited adaptation funding. Indeed donors, such as DFID and USAID, advocate PbR on the
basis that it provides greater value for money and facilitates more efficient and justifiable public spending in
the face of contracting public budgets (Grimwood et al, 2013).
However, several informants noted
that prizes would challenge the
dominant mindset among many
actors, particularly NGOs and CBOs,
of receiving grants to undertake
work, and importantly, could risk
putting increasing strain on already
overstretched budgets. For the
private sector, the challenge is to
incentivise them to take part in a
competition where the reward is
only paid (if they are successful)
after a period of time. This
highlights the need for risk reducing
measures, such as co-funding or small
initial prizes, as well as annual awards,
to provide incentives to take part in
the prize process.
WASH
Section 2.3
For more on the
risks to solvers.
The innovation prize logic focussed
on certainty has also been critiqued
as being at odds with what we know
about complex problems and the need
for supporting long term reflexive
processes in order for adaptation
activities to incorporate ambiguity
and respond to surprises (Chambers,
2014; Leach et al., 2010).This need to
understand and work with complexity is
a central tenet of the growing literature
on resilience (Bahadur et al. 2010;
Tanner et al. 2015). It can therefore be
argued that prizes may run the risk of
encouraging a focus on supporting
easy wins (Grimwood et al, 2013)
– those that can be demonstrated
quickly – at the expense of investment
in long term adaptation processes.
Further, requiring participants to have
solved the problem before they are
paid creates a significant structural
barrier to those actors that do not have
the available resources to undertake
work upfront, or bear the burden
should they not be awarded the prize
(Everrett et al., 2011; Grimwood et al.,
2013). This is where ambiguity over
terms such as cost efficiency and risk
become apparent. As a characteristic
of successful adaptation, cost efficiency
should not only refer to the ability of
donors to save money, but equally
the ability of those with limited access
to resources to access and benefit
from adaptation funding. Transferring
pressure and risk to participants
may be beneficial for donors, but
could pose insurmountable or even
damaging obstacles for small actors,
thus potentially excluding already
marginalised voices, ultimately
impeding the cost efficiency of
adaptation measures overall.
Connected to narratives of reduced
public spending is the growth in CSR
investments by the private sector.
Many prizes are aligned closely with
the interests of specific organisations,
corporations and entrepreneurs
(McKinsey and Company, 2009). This
raises a key challenge for climate
change adaptation in that it is an
area that has struggled to leverage
much private sector support. Pauw
and Scholtz (2012) name three key
motivations for why the for-profit
private sector currently engages
with adaptation: 1) to capitalise
on new markets, 2) to protect their
own existing assets, and 3) as part
of corporate CSR commitments.
The authors also provide some
explanations for this lack of private
sector investment, especially in
developing countries. First, many
adaptation activities such as
coastal protection and ecosystem
conservation are not considered
commercially attractive. Where
investments in agriculture and water
occur, they are more likely to support
large-scale export activities than the
small-scale activities that support
local communities. Thus, while there
may be some instances in which the
adaptation needs or wants of big
business coincide with the adaptation
needs of those people who are
genuinely most vulnerable to climate
change, that coincidence cannot be
assumed. And, efforts to promote
and support adaptation among
marginalised groups should not be
driven by corporate interests alone.
15
A second factor is the generally unconducive business environments and
low level of foreign direct investment
in least developed countries (LDCs),
which tend to have the most urgent
adaptation needs. The majority of
business activities in LDCs come
from micro-enterprises, which lack
the capital to invest in adaptation.
Thirdly, the authors highlight the
lack of a clearly defined role for the
private sector in adaptation plans and
policies such as National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPAs),
and suggest that LDCs should lead
on defining this, as they know their
conditions best. A 2013 report by
PwC for DFID also cites lack of risk
information, poor regulatory, policy and
legal environments, lack of domestic
public and financial infrastructure,
security constraints, weak incentives,
lack of capacity and skills, and weak
knowledge exchange platforms,
as barriers to private investment in
Bangladesh, Kenya, Mozambique and
Pakistan (PwC, 2013).
Another connected narrative is the
general – although not universal
– focus of innovation prizes on
supporting marketable services
and technologies. Technologies
and services have vital roles to
play in supporting adaptation, but
also tend to represent a narrow,
technology and managementoriented framing of problems.
While it is clear that private sector
interest in adaptation is increasing,
it is still an open question whether
the market potentials offered by
adaptation are sufficient to attract
private sector actors, particularly
among the poorest social groups.
As one informant noted, even
climate risk insurance, where there is
considerable ongoing private sector
efforts, have significant challenges
reaching the poorest and most
vulnerable.
The trend towards disbursing larger
funds through prizes could be seen as
a move towards increasing the impact
of CSR. However, the imperative to
create greater social impact through
CSR is unlikely merely philanthropic;
rather it stems from a further
neoliberalisation of traditionally public
sector spaces of social welfare (Sadler
and Lloyd, 2009), and a realisation
among corporate management that
CSR can increase the profitability and
share prices (Levick, 2012). If there
are not clearly profitable benefits
to supporting adaptation, then it
would seem unlikely that it will gain
significant support.
3.3 ADAPTATION PRIZE EXPERIENCES – OPENING UP OR
CLOSING DOWN?
This section looks more closely at some of the prizes outlined in adaptation prize experience section.
In practice, adaptation prizes have taken a variety of forms, drawing on prizes’ potential to change
perceptions, focus attention on adaptation problems, and build the capacity of communities of practice
to solve these problems and scale-up solutions. These prizes address, and sometimes fail to address, the
potential challenges of prizes for adaptation in different ways.
‘Exemplar’ prizes such as NCCARF Climate Adaptation Champions and the upcoming 2015 ASAP Prize
for Progress in Adapting to Climate Change, seek to highlight and encourage adaptation by awarding
honours to communities, businesses, and governmental and non-governmental organisations, for best
practice or recognisable adaptation achievements. Although receiving an honour might open up access
to further funding, and the networks created through the prize may benefit the awardee, these prizes are
not fulfilling the goal of delivering funding to those who would otherwise not have access. Arguably, this
does not address the challenges with PbR, in that entrants are given no support by the prize to achieve
the requirements of an award, presenting potential barrier to access.
The winners of the 2013 Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN) Corporate Adaptation
Prize included Monsanto and PepsiCo. The prize is aimed at corporations to encourage private sector
investment in adaptation. These prize winners are already very well-funded, and both companies have
controversial records on sustainability. Monsanto for example, have been accused of suppressing
independent research, suing small farmers for seed saving, increasing monoculture, encouraging
herbicide and pesticide use, and promoting genetic engineering at expense of potentially more cost
effective alternatives (Robin, 2010). Despite being heralded in the mainstream for their sustainability
efforts (Kanani, 2012), PepsiCo have also attracted recent criticism from activist groups for their weak
commitments on palm oil and deforestation (Kaye, 2014; Greenpeace, 2014). Thus, it is questionable
in this instance that the prize does much to encourage transformation away from unsustainable
development. It also highlights the risk of adaptation prizes supporting unsustainable and unjust
development pathways if it does not lead to changed behaviour, or worse, is used to ‘green wash’
otherwise unsustainable activities.
16
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
In contrast, the UNDP Equator Prize is a recognition prize that aims to support sustainable development work by
communities and indigenous groups. Every two years it awards 25 small cash prizes of USD 5,000 to 20,000. While the
prize award itself is not going to meet long term funding needs, the argument is that well targeted small cash grants can
support growth and catalyse change (UNDP, 2012). A high profile ceremony and prestige of award are both designed
to influence wider policy, and the prize may demonstrate the value in funding community organisations. Many winning
community organisations have also received grants from the GEF Small Grants Program, helping to support the initiatives
beyond the prize itself. The prize is combined with networking, capacity building and knowledge sharing activities as part
of a wider Equator Initiative. The benefit of the prize would thus seem to be synergistic with existing funding, but it is
unclear to what extent the distribution of SGP funding is different as a result of the prize.
With regards to opening up development pathways and meeting context-specific needs, the Equator Prize recognises
that ‘there is no one route to achieving livelihoods and conservation goals, but that this more often consists of trial and
error, underpinned by social cohesion and group trust’ (UNDP, 2012). Winners of the Equator Prize are selected by an
independent technical advisory committee formed of environment and development practitioners, and a jury of highprofile ‘experts’. The selection criteria are relatively broad (Box 1), allowing for a diversity of awardees that can be seen
to align with the aforementioned characteristics of successful adaptation (Table 3). The choice of high-profile experts
used within the jury raises an important issue. On the one hand, high-profile judges give legitimacy to the prize and
strengthen the winning narratives by providing the backing of powerful voices. On the other hand, the imperative to
use high-profile judges, calls into question the likelihood of a prize to offer truly transformative change that challenges
existing power structures, especially if those judges have been chosen largely based on their status. Thus, despite a
recognition of the complexity of adaptation, the process by which awardees are chosen rest on opinions of experts with
varying degrees of connection to the communities and organisations that will benefit. Although certain marginalised
perspectives will likely influence the judging process via the technical committee, it remains far from the participatory
processes that would begin to open up investment decisions to reflexive deliberation.
BOX 1: UNDP EQUATOR PRIZE SELECTION CRITERIA
• Impact: Initiatives that have improved community wellbeing and local livelihoods through sustainable natural resource
management and/or environmental conservation of land based and/or marine resources.
• Sustainability: Initiatives that can demonstrate enduring institutional, operational and financial sustainability over time.
• Innovation and Transferability: Initiatives demonstrating new approaches that overcome prevailing constraints and offer
knowledge, experience and lessons of potential relevance to other communities.
• Leadership and Community Empowerment: Initiatives demonstrating leadership that has inspired action and change consistent
with the vision of the Equator Initiative, including policy and/or institutional change, the empowerment of local people, and the
community management of protected areas.
• Empowerment of Women and Social Inclusion: Initiatives that promote the equality and empowerment of women and/or
marginalized groups.
• Resilience, Adaptability and Self-Sufficiency: Initiatives demonstrating adaptability to environmental, social and economic
change, resilience in the face of external pressures, and improved capacity for local self-sufficiency.
The NESTA Big Green Challenge (BGC) presents further
lessons for the delivery of a community-focussed prize.
The prize was run in order to encourage community
innovation in reducing carbon emissions in the UK. There
are thus key differences in this prize when compared to
a climate adaptation prize, most notably the relatively
concrete nature of carbon reductions in comparison to the
complexity of climate adaptation, as well as the different
resource constraints and political economy of community
groups working on mitigation and adaptation in different
country contexts. There are, however, important crossovers
with the role we are exploring for adaptation prizes, and
the extensive independent evaluation and lesson sharing of
this prize in comparison to other prizes, provides a number
of insights into the potential benefits and challenges of
this funding model. The prize delivered GBP1million in
funding, shared between three winners (GBP 300,000 each)
and one runner up (GBP 100,000). This was awarded based
on the recognised achievement of prize outcomes. Total
costs of the prize were considerably more, at GBP2.25
million. These high costs were attributed in large part to
the emphasis on sharing learning from the prize (Everett et
al., 2011). However, direct delivery of funds to community
groups and lack of constraints on how prize money was
spent enabled winning participants the flexibility to target
those funds in the best way possible for their community
(Everett et al., 2011). Given the imperative to maintain
transparency and reflexivity, it is also likely that total costs
for an effective adaptation prize will be significantly higher
than the prize purse alone. More evidence is needed to
assess whether the benefits of targeting funding to the
local level outweigh the costs of running the prize, and how
this compares with the social benefits and cost efficiency of
other forms of locally targeted adaptation funding.
17
Beyond value for money considerations, there were found to be further benefits
of targeting the prize at community level actors. As intermediary actors between
individuals, businesses and public institutions, it was found that community groups were
able to see and develop opportunities that both private and public sector actors would
not be able to. In addition, targeting the prize at communities was found to encourage
collective action, and create a sense of ownership and responsibility (Cox et al., 2010). This
highlights our previous assertion that the inclusion of different framings and local knowledge
has material consequences for the direction of adaptation and development pathways, as
well as implications for the legitimacy of outcomes within affected groups. It was also found
that prizes were unsuitable as substitutes for grant funding, and that all finalists were only
able to achieve what they did with access to other financial resources or support (Cox et
al., 2010). This being said, the prize structure was found to enable greater support for some
applicants that may not have been considered through conventional funding. For example,
one of the prize winners was not yet a legally constituted group at the beginning of the prize
process (Cox et al., 2010; Everett et al., 2011).
Support was given for prize entrants to
develop their applications. However,
these attempts to compensate for
structural inequalities that could
hinder access to the prize were not
entirely successful. “Less experienced
groups” were still found to suffer
“disproportionate attrition in the
rigorous, three-stage selection
process” (Cox et al., 2010 pp 8).
The outcome based prize approach
was found particularly demanding
for participants, with high levels of
personal sacrifice made by all those
who took part (Everett, 2011). Despite
low barriers to entry and a staged
prized design, the burden of risk was
overwhelmingly placed on entrants,
with some non-winning entrants
“stretched to the limit with little
reward”. The impact of this burden on
communities was not captured in the
evaluation (Cox et al., 2010).
18
Ashoka Changemakers, another high
profile prize focussed on addressing
social problems, also holds network
building as central to innovation.
Rather than awarding communities,
Ashoka targets the prize towards social
entrepreneurs. The prize operates
through a point solution model in
which challenges are proposed by
sponsors and investors, including
large corporations such as ExxonMobil
and eBay as well as international
foundations such as the Rockefeller
Foundation. A community of thousands
of social entrepreneurs, past prize
entrants and Ashoka Fellows then
break the problem down into potential
barriers to success and high-leverage
design principles, and presents them
on a grid. As prize entrants place
their entries publicly on this grid,
highlighting their design principles and
barriers, this is intended to encourage
collaboration between entrants and
influence the way that prize sponsors
frame the problem (McKinsey and
Company, 2009). The method used
to frame problems for Changemakers
is interesting, because it highlights
possibilities for opening up the framing
process. However, overall the framing
of problems remains constrained by
dominant development priorities in
that the basic problem is defined by
sponsors. Ashoka also work based
on a theory of change that is centred
on social entrepreneurship, with the
actors invited to influence problem
framing having already subscribed to
this narrative, thus further restricting
problem framing and limiting the types
of solutions that can emerge.
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
GUIDE
Stage 2
For more on
grassroots innovation.
The entries are then judged by
a panel that includes potential
investors. Initially awards were in the
region of USD 5,000, with exposure
the main route to further funding;
however, there has recently been a
move towards using Changemakers
to disburse larger funds with greater
impact (Everett et al., 2011). On the
one hand this prize model connects
prize entrants with investors,
potentially increasing their chances of
funding though the prize (McKinsey
and Company, 2009). On the other
hand it can be seen to create a clear
bias in which both the prized areas
and the winners of those prizes are
chosen at least in part based on their
appeal to investors rather than on
their ability to meet the needs of
those they claim to benefit.
Indeed, Changemakers publicises
that the prize platform offers
investors access to a high number of
‘new investment-grade innovations’
and the opportunity to ‘raise
awareness and strengthen the global
commitment to [that] organisation’s
goals’. Nancy Barrand of the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation’s Pioneer
Fund acknowledges this benefit in
stating that “The Changemakers
open source competition model let
us shorten our three-to four-year Call
for Proposals process for identifying
investment-grade opportunities to
three or four months, while delivering
an equivalent number of quality
projects.” (Everrett, et al. 2011, The
Case Studies pp.1).
3.4 HOW ARE ADAPTATION PRIZES MEASURING SUCCESS?
As mentioned above, adaptation remains highly context-specific; both the exact problem and the exact
solution will vary from one location to another. This makes formulating prize criteria as well as measuring
the success of climate adaptation prizes particularly challenging.
Many outcome criteria such as those used to judge
the Equator Prize (including impact, resilience and
sustainability) take a long time to demonstrate; hence the
Equator Prize requires that entrants be operational for at
least three years. Ashoka also note that observing system
change can only be undertaken in the long term. In its sixyear impact reports, which focus on the Ashoka Network as
a whole, Ashoka uses a combination of quantifiable data
(using proxy measures for impact, see Box 2), individual
impact stories (i.e. narratives of individual actors), and
system analysis (i.e. looking at how the larger systems have
changed). This data is gathered through self-assessment
questionnaire by Ashoka Fellows and in-depth interviews
with individuals impacted by the work, which is focussed
on how Ashoka has helped the social entrepreneurs and
impact of entrepreneur on system/society.
GUIDE
Stage 3
For more on
award criteria.
Given the difficulties in delivering quantifiable data on
results in the short term, the Changemaker judging
process – as with the other prizes highlighted here – relies
largely on the subjective judgements of ‘experts’ when
dealing with complex problems. NESTA asks for example,
“Is the application innovative”. This ability of prizes to rest
on subjective judgement aligns them more in some ways
with traditional funding, but also potentially overcoming
one of the criticisms levelled at PbR in that the outcomes
reflected in prize criteria do not have to rely on production
of quantifiable (and comparable?) numbers. In this way,
they may be better at addressing complexity than PbR in
general, although they still define success through expert
analysis rather than participatory deliberation.
BOX 2: ASHOKA PROXY INDICATORS
• Does the idea persist and has it spread?
• Are you still working toward your original vision?
• Have others replicated your original idea?
• Have you had impact on public policy?
• Has an institution been created or expanded?
• What position does the institution currently hold in the field?
• Has the Fellow’s relationship with Ashoka “enhanced” his or her work?
• Do you identify yourself as a social entrepreneur?
• Have specific aspects of your relationship with Ashoka enhanced your work?
Ashoka’s Measuring Effectiveness study captures a snapshot in time. Ashoka expects Fellows’ trajectories
to change as they develop new strategies and improve their ability to spread their ideas. In-depth
interviews supplement the surveys and provide a basis for understanding Fellows’ work. These case
studies carried out by Ashoka staff introduce some of the richness lost by quantitative and multiple-choice
responses alone. The reader learns, for example, which groups of citizens have benefited, the systemic
nature of the change, and the proposed strategies for long term spread.
The methods used for Ashoka’s Measuring Effectiveness project introduce some limitations, however. All
of the information presented here is reported directly by Fellows themselves. Fellows are encouraged to
respond honestly and are explicitly told that the Measuring Effectiveness study does not evaluate their
success but rather Ashoka’s impact on the field. Ashoka staff around the world execute all steps of the
Measuring Effectiveness project from design to analysis. Ashoka has maintained this internal process
both because it reduces resource intensity relative to external evaluation and because it allows the study
to account for Ashoka’s particular perspective on social change, and the use of proxy indicators such as
those in Box 2, narrowly defines success in terms of that particular narrative, in which social change is
catalysed by social entrepreneurs.
19
4
DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
20
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
This section draws together the discussion in the previous section,
first highlighting opportunities (subsection 4.1), and second, setting
an agenda for exploring how challenges may be overcome through
prize design (subsection 4.2). The latter informs how the ‘Ideas to
Impact’ programme is currently being designed in the two adaptation
areas, namely demand-driven models for improved use of climate
information in Kenya, and models for supporting the scaling up of
innovation capabilities in Nepal. A more complete synthesis of the
analysis is given in Annex A.
4.1 A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO
SUPPORT ADAPTATION? KEY POTENTIAL
OPPORTUNITIES
Innovation prizes aim to catalyse change around a problem or issue by finding and funding
new solutions, and by raising support for particular ways of doing things. They can take
many forms and employ many different strategies to support change. Depending on the
ways in which adaptation prizes are designed, the motivation for prizes on adaptation is
that they may have the potential to:
●● Leverage more adaptation funding. As prizes are growing in popularity among
businesses, financial foundations, and public sector donors, adaptation prizes
could hope to capitalise on this finance trend. The argument is that prizes may be
able to leverage much more than the prize purse, by encouraging further private
sector investment. This would be a considerable benefit to adaptation, which is still
struggling to attract private sector finance.
WASH
Section 3.2.3
For more on how prizes
can leverage funds.
●● Promote diversity to tackle complexity. Adaptation is a complex and context-specific
challenge, requiring tailored solutions. While this is a challenge, this may also be an
opportunity, in that prizes attempt not to prescribe what the solutions should look like,
or how they should be achieved. Often the winning solutions are a surprise to sponsors.
By actively seeking out and including diverse voices on adaptation, prizes can thus
help support solutions rooted in particular contexts, highlighting the many different
perspectives on, and ways of adapting to, climate change.
●● Put local-level actors in the lead. Prizes can be designed in a number of different
ways. They could thus offer an opportunity to re-define who makes adaptation
investment decisions. With careful design, it could be possible to use prizes to shift
the attention – and decision making power – towards those who are most affected by
climate change. Prizes could provide a platform for those who are often not effectively
targeted by adaptation finance to set the investment agenda, showcase solutions, and
influence how funds are spent.
●● Influence policy and raise awareness. As high profile and engaging events, prizes can
capture the attention of policy makers, media, the public, and professionals alike, helping
to rally support for adaptation measures that considers the needs but also capacity and
skills of the poorest and most vulnerable groups.
●● Build communities of practice. Adaptation cuts across sectors. It requires
collaboration and collective action. Prizes have the potential to bring together new
actors, strengthen networks and build new communities of practice to focus on
particular adaptation challenges.
GUIDE
Stage 2
For more on changing
the policy environment.
21
4.2 KEY CHALLENGES AND PRINCIPLES FOR RESEARCH
AND APPLICATION
Our analytical framework is based around an understanding of framings and narratives, actors and agency and
how they interact to produce particular development pathways, and in turn particular adaptation outcomes.
This framework represents a critique of a linear, techno-managerial approach to adaptation support. As shown
in the previous sections, key to this critique is that for a prize to successfully support adaptation, it needs to be
able to consider and support the diverse perspectives of marginalised groups. This involves, in particular, (1)
broadening out the inputs to the prize process, i.e. making it inclusive of diverse perspectives and priorities);
(2) opening up the outputs from the prize process, i.e. recognising diverse options and acknowledge
distributional and sustainability implications of the adaptation pathways that will result, and (3) attending
to power relations through the process, so that it does not inadvertently or deliberately prioritise pathways
favoured by a particular group.
As yet, there is limited experience of using prizes to support climate change adaptation, and the potentials as
outlined above remain largely untested. However, existing evidence highlights a number of serious challenges,
outlined below. We propose from available evidence that these challenges are not insurmountable, but
may be overcome through careful consideration in design and implementation of innovation prizes to
support adaptation. Following this, we lay out a set of indicative solutions to consider in prize design and
management, which will be tested through the two prizes for adaptation. Some of them have already informed
prize design for the adaptation theme of the Ideas to Impact programme, and they will continue to inform
design, and tested through the implementation of the prizes.
CHALLENGE: UNEQUAL PRESSURES
INCREASE MARGINALISATION
CHALLENGE: PRIZES FAVOUR
POWERFUL INTERESTS
●● As a form of PbR, prizes tend to transfer risk from
sponsors to prize entrants. While this may result in
greater cost efficiency for sponsors, it also potentially
excludes resource constrained actors, and places
participants under strain if not otherwise supported.
Lessons from the NESTA Big Green Challenge (BGC)
note that, despite efforts to provide support, great
financial and time pressures were placed on prize
entrants, and these had a greater impact on those with
fewer resources (Cox et al., 2010).
●● Growth in prizes is being driven by powerful narratives
such as PbR, which may not favour those with greatest
adaptation need.
POSSIBLE DESIGN SOLUTION: STRUCTURAL
SUPPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY
●● Prizes must be designed to empower those without
existing access to resources, not discriminate against
them. Prizes should specifically target and attend to
the needs of those who do not usually gain access to
funding.
●● Prizes are in most cases not a replacement for grant
funding. In fact, grants are shown to be crucial in
supporting community prize entrants to participate and
take their innovations further (UNDP, 2012; Cox et al.,
2010). By giving credibility to entrants and combining
grant funding with the prize process, prizes can make
access to funding easier.
●● Accessibility includes reducing time as well as financial
burdens, for example, by providing support with
child care for primary carers, and running prizes over
timescales that accommodate participants with multiple
commitments. As demonstrated, the fast pace of BGC
was one of the most serious pressures for community
participants (Everett, 2011).
●● The problems to be solved are often largely defined
by sponsors, and solutions commonly judged by ‘highprofile experts’, rather than being shaped and decided
by the priorities of the most vulnerable populations. This
introduces the risk that the spotlight is on problems and
solutions that suit the dominant actors. Adaptation is
complex – what works for some may hinder others. So
allowing the prize definitions and solutions to be shaped
only by perspectives of those in power is unlikely to yield
effective adaptation results.
POSSIBLE DESIGN SOLUTION: DEMOCRATIC,
PARTICIPATORY AND OPEN PROCESSES
●● It matters who comes out on top, both in terms of
taking home the prize, but also in terms of gaining
wider support for their ideas. If prizes are to support
adaptation for the most vulnerable, they need to
provide a space for the perspectives of marginalised
groups to shape the solutions that are supported.
●● Prizes should be designed around participatory
processes for deciding prize problems and judging
which entries get funding. This means unpicking power
relations throughout prize processes.
●● Spaces should be made for prize designers, sponsors
and participants to ask: Why are prizes being used?
Are they fit for purpose? What assumptions are being
made (e.g. pre-eminence of the private sector)? Whose
realities are being considered? What solutions are being
supported? And what implications this has for who will
benefit and how?
GUIDE
Stage 1
For more on ensuring that the
beneficiaries’ needs are met.
22
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
CHALLENGE: PROMOTE EASY WINS OVER COMPLEX
CHALLENGES
●● Focussing on increasing competition to achieve quick, measurable
results, cannot be assumed to effectively support adaptation. Adaptation
is a continual, complex, context-specific and long term learning process.
Some of the most important adaptation challenges are the most difficult
to solve precisely because they involve governance or institutional
processes that require structural changes, where market potentials are
limited or non-existent, or require long term transformations of social
and environmental systems.
POSSIBLE DESIGN SOLUTION: PARTICIPATORY DELIBERATION
AND REFLEXIVITY
●● Choosing prize problems and winning solutions should be a
deliberative process, which includes voices of the climate vulnerable,
and explores ambiguity and complexity.
●● Prizes may work best if focussed on concrete, short term challenges closely
linked to people’s livelihoods and incomes; however this requires an
awareness of how these are situated in relation to long term adaptation
success (Table 3); i.e. effectiveness, robustness, flexibility, equity, economic
feasibility, legitimacy and transformation potential.
●● Long term monitoring and reflexivity can help understand both
positive and negative unexpected outcomes of prizes in relation to
characteristics of successful adaptation.
●● Prizes can include, or be embedded within, knowledge exchange and
social learning processes. Not only can these help build networks and
share ideas, they can also facilitate long term reflexive processes to
understand who is still not benefiting from adaptation funding, and how
prizes might be able to address the gaps.
Even if possible, efforts to democratise prizes
would be likely make them more timeconsuming, and costly. Key questions that
remain – and which will be explored in the
prizes in Kenya and Nepal –therefore include:
●● Given that driving motivations for running
prizes are reducing risk to funders and
finding solutions to problems of interest
to funders, how likely is a prize like this to
gain institutional support or the financial
backing that it needs?
●● Would donors be interested in prizes as,
what would essentially attempt to be, a
participatory funding mechanism?
Reflecting on the evidence, innovation
prizes may hold significant promise as a
complementary funding mechanism for
adaptation to climate change. However, as this
paper has noted, there are clear challenges
and risks, to which the solutions are not yet
adequately tested. Further research is needed
in order to understand these challenges across
different contexts, and to gain better empirical
evidence of which strategies work to overcome
them. The Ideas to Impact programme aims to
contribute towards this effort. It is critical that
future adaptation prizes also continue to hold
learning and reflexivity as central to their aims,
in order for prizes to be used as an effective
and pro-poor funding mechanism.
23
REFERENCES
Acosta-Michlik, L., Espaldon, V.
(2008) Assessing vulnerability of
selected farming communities in the
Philippines based on a behavioural
model of agent’s adaptation to
global environmental change.
Global Environmental Change. 18
(4), 554– 563
Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W. and
Tompkins, E. L. (2005) Successful
adaptation to climate change across
scales. Global Environmental Change
15: 77–86.
Baer, M., Vadera, A. K., Leenders,
R.T.A.J. and Oldham, G. (2013)
Intergroup Competition as a DoubleEdged Sword: How Sex Composition
Regulates the Effects of Competition
on Group Creativity. Organization
Science. 25(3), 892 – 908.
Bahadur, A. V., Ibrahim, M. and
Tanner, T. (2011) Resilience
Renaissance? Unpacking of
resilience for tackling climate change
and disasters. Strengthening Climate
Resilience Discussion Paper 1.
Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies
Brookes, N., Anderson, S., Ayers,
J., Burton, I. and Tellam, I.
(2011) Tracking adaptation and
measuring development. IIED
Climate Change Working Paper
No. 1. London, UK, IIED
Chambers, R. (2014) Perverse
Payment by Results: frogs in a
pot and straitjackets for obstacle
course [online] Available at: https://
participationpower.wordpress.
com/2014/09/03/perverse-paymentby-results-frogs-in-a-pot-andstraitjackets-for-obstacle-courses/
[Accessed 15 Dec 2014]
Cox, J., Giorgi, S., Drayson, R. and
King, G. (2010) The Big Green
Challenge Final evaluation report,
Executive summary for NESTA.
London, Brook Lyndhurst
24
Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati,
C. S., D’Almeida Martins, R., Molefe,
J. I., Nhemachena, C., O’Brien, K.,
Olorunfemi, F., Park, J., Sygna, L. and
Ulsrud, K. (2011) When not every
response to climate change is a
good one: Identifying principles for
sustainable adaptation. Climate and
Development. 3, 7-20
Everett, B., Barnett, C. and Verma,
R. (2011) Evidence Review –
Environmental Innovation Prizes for
Development. DEW Point Enquiry
No. A0405. London, DFID
Fenton, A., Gallagher, D., Wright,
H., Huq, S. and Nyandiga, C. (2014)
Up-scaling finance for communitybased adaptation, Climate and
Development, 6(4), 388-397
Greenpeace (2014) Pepsico’s
Low Palm Oil Standards
[online]. Available at: http://
greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/05/22/
pepsicos-low-standards/ [Accessed
29th January, 2015]
Grimwood, G. G., Edmonds,
T., McGuinness, F., Powell, T.,
Roberts, N. and Wilson, W. (2013)
Delivering public services: The
growing use of Payment by Results.
Commons Library Standard Note
SN/HA/6621. London, UK, House
of Commons Library
Hewitson, B., Janetos, A.C., Carter,
T.R., Giorgi, F., Jones, R.G., Kwon,
W.-T. , Mearns, L.O., Schipper, E.L.F.
and van Aalst, M. (2014) Regional
context. In: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B.,
Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D.,
Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee,
M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova,
R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy,
A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea,
P.R. and White, L.L. [eds.] Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge, UK and New York, USA,
Cambridge University Press
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
Kanani, R. (2012) Why PepsiCo
is a Global Leader in Water
Stewardship and Sustainable
Agriculture [online]. Available
at: http://www.forbes.com/
sites/rahimkanani/2012/09/14/
why-pepsico-is-a-global-leader-inwater-stewardship-and-sustainableagriculture/ [Accessed 29th
January, 2015]
Kaye, L. (2014) Pepsi True
Savaged on Amazon Over Palm
Oil Controversy. [online] Available
at: http://www.triplepundit.
com/2014/11/pepsi-true-savagedamazon-palm-oil-controversy/
[accessed 29th January 2014]
Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Stirling,
A. (2010) Dynamic Sustainabilities:
Technology, Environment, Social
Justice. London, Earthscan
Levick, R. (2012) Corporate
Social Responsibility for Profit.
Forbes [online]. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/
richardlevick/2012/01/11/corporatesocial-responsibility-for-profit/
[Accessed 9 Jan 2015]
Liu, C., Golding, D., Gong, G. (2008)
Farmers’ coping response to the
low-flows in the Lower Yellow River:
A case study of temporal dimensions
of vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change. 18(4), 543–553
Marshall. M., Byrne, R. and
Ockwell., D. (2014) Gender and
the construction of identity within
climate technology innovation in
Kenya. STEPS Working Paper 62.
Brighton, UK, STEPS Centre
McKinsey and Company (2009)
“And the winner is ...” Capturing
the promise of philanthropic
prizes. Sydney, Australia,
McKinsey & Company
Pauw, P. and Scholtz, I. (2012) Private
financing of adaptation to climate
change in poor countries? [online]
Available at: http://www.die-gdi.
de/en/the-current-column/article/
private-financing-of-adaptation-toclimate-change-in-poor-countries/
[Accessed 20 June 2014]
PwC, 2013 Stimulating private
sector engagement and investment
in building disaster resilience
and climate change adaptation:
Recommendations for public finance
support. Report written for DFID Ref:
DFID/RM353.
Robin, M. (2010) The world
according to Monsanto: Pollution,
corruption, and the control of our
food supply. New York: New Press
Sadler, D. and Lloyd, S. (2009)
Neo-liberalising corporate social
responsibility: A political economy
of corporate citizenship. Geoforum.
40(4), 613–622
Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of
Climate Change. London, UK, HM
Treasury
Stirling, A. (2008) “Opening Up” and
“Closing Down” Power, Participation,
and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal
of Technology. Science, Technology,
& Human Values. 33(2), 262-294
Tanner, T.M. and Horn-Phathanothai,
D.L. (2014) Climate Change and
Development. Perspectives in
Development Series. Routledge,
London.
Tanner, T. [et al.] (2015). Livelihood
resilience in the face of climate
change. Nature Climate Change, 5
(1): 23-26.
United Nations Development
Programme (2012) The Power of
Local Action: Lessons from 10 Years
of the Equator Prize. New York, USA,
UNDP
Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing
Innovation. Cambridge MA, USA, The
MIT Press
ANNEX A: INNOVATION PRIZES
AND ADAPTATION: SYNTHESIS
OF THE ANALYSIS
Characteristics Opportunities and Constraints of Innovation prizes
Potential indicative remedies to overcome constraints
Intrinsic constraints
remaining?
Effective
+ For donors: solution demonstrated before payment
• Participatory deliberative processes of problem framing and judging
– Challenges of incorporating long term climate changes and
adaptation complexity
• Limited incentive
to incorporate long
term perspectives
• Long term reflexive monitoring and learning
+ Potentially wide range of solutions presented
– PbR and high pressure of prize risks jeopardising feasibility of most
effective solutions if they are resource constrained
Recognises
complex
contexts
• Symmetrical weighting of framings and inclusion of
marginalised perspectives
• Multiple stages of funding for incremental support and long term
reflexivity
• Inclusive prize design (of actors, perspectives, knowledges, options etc.)
+ Judgement of panel allows for greater consideration of complexity
than purely quantifiable measurements
• Participatory deliberative processes of problem framing and judging
+ Proactively seeks different perspectives and a range of solutions
• Long term reflexive monitoring and learning
+ Open to ‘surprises’
• Symmetrical weighting of framings and inclusion of
marginalised perspectives
– Judgement rests on expert opinion
• Multiple stages of funding
– Tendency towards measurable, tangible results.
– Prize platform design and problem narratives may limit potential solutions
in unforeseen ways, and close down around interests of powerful, excluding
certain forms of knowledge and perspectives of most marginalised
• Potential for
targeting ‘easy wins’
• Limited incentive
to incorporate long
term perspectives
• Inclusive prize design (of actors, perspectives, knowledges, options etc.)
• Multiple awardees
– No inherent incentive in innovation prizes to incorporate long
term perspectives
– Focus on potential for targeting ‘easy wins’
Robust and
flexible
+ Judgement of panel allows for greater consideration of complexity
than purely quantifiable measurements
+ Open to ‘surprises’
+ Proactively seek different perspectives and a range of solutions
– Rests on expert opinion i.e. panel’s judgement
– Tendency towards exclusively measurable, tangible results
and situations with low/ quantifiable risks, rather than exploring
ambiguity of complex situations
– Prize platform design and problem narratives may limit potential
solutions in unforeseen ways, and close down around interests of powerful
• Participatory deliberative processes of problem framing and judging • Limited incentive
to incorporate long
• Symmetrical weighting of framings and inclusion of marginalised
term perspectives
perspectives
• Reflexive monitoring and learning processes included in prize design,
and/or prize embedded within longer term learning processes
• Multiple awardees and multiple stages of funding for incremental
support and long term reflexivity
• Inclusive prize design (of actors, perspectives, knowledges, options etc.)
• Panel includes lay/local experts
– No/limited incentive to incorporate long term perspectives
Equitable and
legitimate
+ Potential for bypassing or supplementing existing funding sources • Consciously address power relations throughout problem
in order to directly support most marginalised and climate vulnerable
framing, judging and prize running
+ Opportunity for network building and raising support for different
narratives
+ Participants may be, or have close connections to, the ultimate
beneficiaries of solution.
+ Proactively seeks different perspectives
– Tendency to support already powerful narratives, thus reinforcing
existing inequalities
• Inherently elitedriven?
• Participatory deliberative processes of problem framing and judging • Limited incentive
to incorporate long
• Symmetrical weighting of framings and inclusion of
term perspectives
marginalised perspectives.
• Reflexive monitoring and learning in order to understand who benefits
from the award and attend to longer term impacts on power relations
• Inclusive prize design (of actors, perspectives, knowledges, options etc.)
– Common focus on marketable products typically most benefits
those with existing easy access to markets.
– Prize platform design and problem narratives tend to be elitedefined (donors/sponsors) and may exclude certain forms of
knowledge and perspectives of most marginalised.
– Judgement rests on expert opinion
– Tends to seek measurable, tangible results.
25
Characteristics Opportunities and Constraints of Innovation prizes
Potential indicative remedies to overcome constraints
Potentially
+ Judgement of panel allows for greater consideration of complexity
transformative than purely quantifiable measurements
• Participatory deliberative processes of problem framing and judging • Potential for targeting
‘easy wins’
• Symmetrical weighting of framings and inclusion of
+ Open to ‘surprises’
– Transformational change only discernible over long time periods
– Problem defined by sponsor/donor
– Heavily influenced by powerful neoliberal, private sector focussed
narratives
– ‘high-profile expert’ judges may have vested interests
marginalised perspectives
• Embed long term reflexive monitoring and learning processes In
prize design and implementation
Intrinsic constraints
remaining?
• Limited incentive
to incorporate long
term perspectives
• Inclusive prize design (of actors, perspectives, knowledges, options etc.)
• Consciously address power relations and challenge driving narratives
– Limited inclusion of different forms of knowledge
– High pressure of prize format may exclude marginalised actors
– Potential for targeting ‘easy wins’
– Limited incentive to incorporate long term perspectives
Low or
no-regrets,
economically
feasible and
cost efficient
+ For donors: solutions and impacts demonstrated before payment
+ For donors: leverages finance from prize participants and
supporting networks
+ Can help leverage finance from other donors
+ Potentially wide range of solutions presented
+ Focusses on immediate gains
– PbR and high pressure of prize risks jeopardising feasibility of
resource constrained solutions
– Problems and prize priorities defined by sponsors and/or influenced
by powerful development narratives, thus potentially failing to
address needs of most climate vulnerable/politically marginalised
– Limited incentive to incorporate long term perspectives
– Potential for un-recouped losses (financial and effort), among nonwinning entrants.
– Greater potential for duplication of efforts.
– Prize format places resource pressures on prize participants.
– Potential for targeting ‘easy wins’
26
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
+ Multiple stages of funding
+ Inclusive prize design (of actors, perspectives, knowledges, options etc.)
+ Combine with grant funding
+ Careful prize design and problem definition to avoid duplication
of efforts (in particular targeting marginalised actors and issues that
fall through existing funding net)
+ Participatory deliberative processes of problem framing and judging
– Limited incentive to
incorporate long term
perspectives
ANNEX B: PRIZE OPTION 1 - CLIMATE
INFORMATION FOR ADAPTATION
The climate information innovation prize will aim to stimulate development of
models that make climate information more useable by the poorest and most
vulnerable. The focus will be on articulating demand for climate information,
rather than what often tend to be supply-side concerns such as the quality and
availability of data and applications for climate risk information. The prize will
focussing attention on incentivising user-led mechanisms to articulate demand
in a way that is tailored in time, space and context, group those demands in
ways that producers of climate information can respond to, and link these to
other services provided by private or public sector actors. The solution could
relate to, but must be able to go beyond SMS or mobile phone-based tools, be
able to generate and articulate context-specific demand, and link actors and
services. The prize, which we suggest locating in Kenya, will link innovators with
climate science providers (notably Kenya Meteorological Services), other public
agencies, private sector, NGO/civil society organisations, and academics.
The innovation prize will differentiate itself from the wealth of other activity
in this area by connecting actors (science, government, private sector,
intermediaries) in a way that leaves those living in poverty in control over the
information that is generated, and services provided.
This prize thus sits between other efforts – and prizes – on development of
user-friendly tools for using climate information (including ‘hackathons’
and prizes for development of mobile phone apps), and community based
work to promote co-production of knowledge or increase uptake of climate
information, including work to combine indigenous and scientific forecast
information (e.g. Newsham et al. 2011). The prize seeks to address the
gap in usability of climate information by focussing attention on the users,
their needs and demands. Usability can be seen as a function of three
interconnected factors, namely fit (how knowledge fits decision making),
interplay (the interplay between new knowledge and other types of
knowledge) and interaction (the level and quality of interaction between
producers and users) (Lemos et al 2012).
The model for relaying information could be individual, household level or
community based, but it should be designed in a way that works with local
social institutions.
In order to solve the prize problem a clear articulation of demands for
climate information is needed, in a form that connects usefully to service
providers. Many would argue that a key problem is in users’ perception and
understanding of forecasts and what they mean. For example, statements
like “40% probability of below normal rainfall”, or “250 mm of rain” do not
necessarily mean a lot to users. Arguably, if users do not understand climate
information, they cannot know what they can (or cannot) ask for, thus obscuring
the real demand for climate information among users. A challenge is to find
a way to articulate climate information in a way that can connect end-users to
providers of climate information (primarily Meteorological offices, but also civil
society/private sector intermediaries), as well as those other services that could
add value to the climate information or make people better able to respond to
climate risk (public or private sector providers, or civil society intermediaries).
FIGURE 1: A PRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF ACTOR NETWORKS WITHIN THE ADAPTATION INNOVATION
ECOSYSTEM; ACTORS THAT A PRIZE WILL TARGET DIRECTLY AND THOSE THAT IT WILL INCENTIVISE TO CONNECT
ACTORS TO INCENTIVISE
NGOs
NGOs
Capacity
Capacityand
and
network
networkbuilding
building
PRI Z E T
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
ORGANISATIONS
Innovation field testing
and development support
CLIMATE INFORMATION
PROVIDERS
AR G E T
USERS (low-income households)
Individuals, households, collectives
DIALOGUE
Models for articulating,
grouping and tailoring
demands for climate
information
KENYA MET OFFICE
National data provider
DIALOGUE
ED
ROV
IMP
SERVICE PROVIDERS
A
DAT
ICPAC
Regional capacity building/support
GLOBAL CLIMATE DATA PROVIDERS
Support, capacity building,
data provider
PRIVATE SECTOR
• Technology and product suppliers
• Insurance companies
• Specialised data providers
• Mobile phone companies
Users
Intermediaries & knowledge brokers
Suppliers/providers
Network building
R&D facilitation
PUBLIC SECTOR
• Extension providers
27
ANNEX C: PRIZE OPTION 2 –
ADAPTATION AT SCALE
The Adaptation at Scale Prize will be a 3-year community prize. It will reward
and incentivise best practice innovation system building processes that link
communities and community based actors with wider networks for bringing
local adaptation innovations to scale. The prize is intended to contribute to
building and strengthening local adaptation innovation capabilities, which in
turn underpin the adaptive capacity of people, households and communities.
In order to align with the priorities and resources of IDRC, the proposed
implementation partner, it is suggested that the prize be focussed on Nepal.
• Build networks of diverse stakeholders working proactively together
• Foster and share learning from research and experience
• Promote shared visions among stakeholders
• Support diverse experimentation with technologies and practices.
The prize will be implemented in Nepal. The country was chosen due to
the large amount of community-focussed adaptation initiatives and actors,
including government, donors and non-government actors. Notably, the
government has developed about 100 Local Adaptation Plans of Action
(LAPA) at district levels, and a number of community adaptation plans
and risk management plans are being developed at lower governance
levels. A geographic and/or regional focus is important for this prize for two
main reasons: first because it is envisaged that the prize will need close
engagement with particular communities, and secondly, because the prize
would need a level of comparability among the proposed solutions.
The envisaged role of the innovation prize is to promote models for supporting
and strengthening productive and innovative capabilities for adaptation
innovation development. A particular focus will be on the role of intermediaries.
The prize will incentivise sustainable private sector involvement in facilitating
this capability building. Crucially, the prize aims to ensure that community
benefit and rights to intellectual property are secured, especially where the
solutions developed are the result of grassroots innovation.
Drawing on the socio-technical transitions literature, including the above
framework by Byrne et al. (2014), Ockwell (2014) recommends four policy goals
for building innovation systems and technological capabilities. These goals will
form the four key objectives of this prize, and it is suggested that prize applicants
would demonstrate successful contributions to at least two of the following:
FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY ACTOR NETWORKS WITHIN THE ADAPTATION INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM; ACTORS
THAT THE PRIZE WILL TARGET DIRECTLY AND THOSE THAT IT WILL INCENTIVIZE TO CONNECT
ACTORS TO INCENTIVISE
System influence
on finance
priorities
FINANCE ORGANISATIONS
(banks, donors)
Finance flow
to actors in
system
Finance flows
through gov
GOVERNMENT
MINISTRIES
PRIZE T A R G ET
INTERMEDIARY
ORGANISATIONS
NGOs & CBOs
INNOVATION INCUBATORS
System
influence
on policy
Innovation
supporting
policies
Public services
Influence on policy/planning
Institutional innovation
RESEARCH &
ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS
Collaborative R&D,
field testing
ADAPTING COMMUNITIES
Understanding context,
capacity building, GRASSROOTS INNOVATORS
brokering
USERS
OTHER
BOUNDARY
INSTITUTIONS
Innovation
specific
Intermediaries
Users
Suppliers/producers
Complementors
28
Advisory services, finance, networking
A ROLE FOR INNOVATION PRIZES TO SUPPORT ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?
SUPPLIERS/
MANUFACTURERS/
SERVICE PROVIDERS
ADAPTATION NGOS & CBOS
PUBLIC SECTOR
Implementing climate change
adaptation programmes
PRIVATE SECTOR
Manufacturers, retailers &
distribution
Sales, supply,
provision
Learning,
align visions/
expectations
This material has been funded by UK aid from the UK
government; however the views expressed do not
necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. The
paper has been produced by Ideas to Impact, managed by
IMC Worldwide. Comments and discussion on items related
to content and opinion should be addressed to the author,
via the Contact us page on the Ideas to Impact website:
www.ideastoimpact.net/get-touch
Ideas to Impact papers are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. This means that you
are free to share and adapt this information for any purpose,
even commercial. However, you must give appropriate credit,
provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were
made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in
any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that
legally restrict others from doing anything the licence permits.
ideastoimpact.net